Ask the Car People.SM


Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

6854 messages,  Last post on Jul 16, 2012 at 8:08 AM

You are in the Sedans Forum.

What is this discussion about? Buick Lucerne, Chevrolet Impala, Dodge Charger, Ford Taurus, Hyundai Azera, Toyota Avalon, Nissan Maxima, Pontiac G8, Car Comparisons, Sedan

Messages Page 319 of 686

#3177 of 6854 Re: be careful what you wish for [captain2] by vic10

Sep 08, 2007 (7:16 am)

Replying to: captain2 (Sep 08, 2007 6:42 am)
Ford has had the sluggish transmission issue since the first Taurus, and it certainly was there in the 500. Comments here indicate it's also on the Avalon and Azera. Does the Lucerne have the problem (the 1990's GM 4-speed didn't so maybe this one doesn't since the transmission is basically the same)? Or Nissan? I'd have to disagree that it's an unfortunate but "natural" result of trying to blend performance and fuel economy. My 300C responds instantly and it has to both re-activate 4 cylinders AND pick a gear when accelerating above 35mph. And it gets 18-19 mpg in the city and 26-28 on the highway (as long as you keep it below 75 when the MDS is still active).

#3178 of 6854 Re: be careful what you wish for [vic10] by captain2

Sep 08, 2007 (4:27 pm)

Replying to: vic10 (Sep 08, 2007 7:16 am)
I'd have to disagree that it's an unfortunate but "natural" result of trying to blend performance and fuel economy
 your comments on your 300C only support my contention - your hemi hardly designed for any semblance of FE and at least according to CR (14 mpg city) its FE is the most overrated of ALL cars. You must have a different idea of what 'city' driving really is if you claim 18-19 - heck I can think of 'city' conditions where even my Avalon might not be able to achieve 18 mpg, and it IS easily 5 or 6 mpg better than any 300C ever thought of being (overall FE) despite almost being able to keep up with you.
All that said, however, the 300C is a good example of what Detroit should do- big ole V8s on a decent German engineered chassis - the 300C is a hoot to drive!
PS - the ole GM 4 speed is a good example of what I'm talking about - much simpler, cheaper to repair, and more responsive (in a traditional sense) than these new 5 and 6 speed electronic 'wonders'. Soon to be a thing of the past though, as the carbuyers somehow think that more is better. Torque steer has long been a 'condition' of V6 Nissans largely because of those 'more responsive trannies ' (and HP/torque, while Toyotas/Lexus as well as Honda/Acura tend to exhibit less simply due to gear selection 'control'. The CVTs now in the Altima/Maxima of course use even more computer control, apparently eliminate the TS all at the expense of that rev up/shift driving experience that many of us appreciate...

#3179 of 6854 Re: be careful what you wish for [captain2] by tjc78

Sep 09, 2007 (5:32 am)

Replying to: captain2 (Sep 08, 2007 4:27 pm)
I don't know about the others here, but I just do not like CVTs. I drove a 500 with it and it just feels unatural. Any car using a CVT will immediately be off my shopping list. This is purely my opinion, but I will deal with our over computerized 5,6 speed trannys before going to CVT. Ford dropped theirs, so either the consumers are saying they don't want them or they are too expensive to produce.
 
"heck I can think of 'city' conditions where even my Avalon might not be able to achieve 18 mpg"
 
My Avalon gets an overall of 21 MPG. Very low compared to others here, however, my nightly ride home is almost all gridlock and the car sees very little open highway except for 8 miles in the morning. On my last tank with two 100 mile all highway round trips I am at 23.8. It was over 27 until I started back into my routine. So, the 18 all city is probably "real world" accurate. Still happy with these #'s because they beat my '03 Avalon by at least 2MPG with 70 more HP.

#3180 of 6854 Re: be careful what you wish for [tjc78] by cobrazera

Sep 10, 2007 (2:49 am)

Replying to: tjc78 (Sep 09, 2007 5:32 am)
I agree with your thoughts on CVTs, but I'd bet that the new Taurus doesn't have one because the new , more powerful motor puts out too much torque for the CVT.
Nissan seems to be the only manufacturer that is able to combine high torque with a CVT - and I'll bet a lot of their potential customers will shop elsewhere just because of that CVT.

#3181 of 6854 'Tain't Necessarily So . . by derrelhgreen

Sep 10, 2007 (8:27 am)

Replying to: cobrazera (Sep 10, 2007 2:49 am)
Horsepower for the 'new' 3.5 Ford is 260 6250 rpm; Torque is only 245 ft/lb 4500 rpm
 
Horsepower for the 3.5 Nissan is 255 6000 rpm; Torque is 252 ft/lb at 4000 rpm.
 
Could it be that Nissan knows how to built a better moosetrap?
 
Have you driven any of their products with that CVT tranny?
 
 

#3182 of 6854 Re: 'Tain't Necessarily So . . [derrelhgreen] by captain2

Sep 10, 2007 (11:01 am)

Replying to: derrelhgreen (Sep 10, 2007 8:27 am)
yes I have and found it somewhat disconcerting - depending on how hard you step on the gas, the engine just stays at some relatively high rpm level and the car seems to 'catch up' in terms of road speed. there are no discernable 'shifts'. How this could be more efficient (which it apparently is) defies logic, and I would imagine it would be more bothersome with engines that are rougher at those higher rpm. Good thing the Nissan VQ is that better mousetrap - something that those 'Detroit' mfgrs. have yet to do (the GM 3.6 is close) but Toytota, Honda, and even Hyundai have managed to do.

#3183 of 6854 Taurus Questions by desertrat5

Sep 10, 2007 (6:52 pm)

I finally was able to drive an AWD Taurus. In fact, I drove an SEL followed by a Limited. Both were AWD. I was surprised at the difference between the two vehicles - the steering of the SEL was almost too light while the Limited steering had a much more substantial feel to it. I wonder if this is a car to car difference or if the larger wheels and tires on the Limited make that much difference?
  
The Limited seemed quieter than the SEL. Other than that they were similar. I had an MKZ rental earlier this year and was impressed with the responsiveness of the engine/transmission combination. I believe this is the same package in the Taurus and it was nicely responsive. The SEL only had 26 miles on it while the Limited had nearly 2600 so the later felt quicker. I was greatly disappointed that Ford has chosen to not offer any greater manual control over the transmission. I had heard there was an OD lock out button but I couldn't find one and the sales person was of no help either. He did say all you had to do to manually downshift was to pull the selector back into low and the transmission would downshift one gear. When I did it the transmission went all the way to LOW. The tach certainly works okay:)!
  
The sales person also said that when you turn off the stability control it basically sends equal torque to all four wheels. Is this true?
  
Any feedback on the navigation system? The two dealers that I visited didn't have any vehicles so equipped.
  
We have been driving a series of AWD vehicles to replace our 2000 Park Avenue. Lots of nice vehicles but the Taurus seems to be the best compromise for our requirements. It is comfortable, handles decently, appears to get decent mileage and has AWD. I am not a FORD person but am leaning that way right now.

#3184 of 6854 Re: be careful what you wish for [cobrazera] by captain2

Sep 10, 2007 (8:21 pm)

Replying to: cobrazera (Sep 10, 2007 2:49 am)
true - CVTs have always been limited to low HP/torque econoboxes ever since they first appeared in the DAFs a long time ago - that tranny (if I'm not mistaken) literally used rubber bands moving up and down cones to effect gear ratios. Nissan metal/belt technology is different than anybody had tried and apparently also solves problems CVTs have had in low temperatures. Been around for awhile now in the heavier Murano successfully and beginning to appear in other models as well - but maybe still a little early to declare it a 'solution'. RemeMber that the CVTs are by nature much simpler (and lighter) thanj these new 5 6 7 and 8 speeds and therefore cheaper and easier to fix.
 
The Ford/Volvo CVT TMK used chains much more like a 10 (or 15) speed bike, and therefore would logically handle the 250 lb./ft.+ better - don't know why it was discontinued - perhaps reliability concerns, although I have heard of no such problems. A reliable CVT offered in a std FWD Taurus would seemingly allow for an extra mpg or two in the FE wars, much like it is now doing in the Maxima....

#3185 of 6854 Re: Taurus Questions [desertrat5] by captain2

Sep 10, 2007 (8:34 pm)

Replying to: desertrat5 (Sep 10, 2007 6:52 pm)
The sales person also said that when you turn off the stability control it basically sends equal torque to all four wheels. Is this true?
doubt this very seriously - if anything turning traction control off might send a bit more aft (not 50%). SC has alot to do with selective brake application, dethrottling, and in some cases even tranny gear selections, but TMK nothing to do with power delivery - if anything ultimate stability would be improved with equal torque to all wheels, turning the system off to improve stability would be contradictory. Sounds like a typical salesperson to me?

#3186 of 6854 Re: Taurus Questions [captain2] by tjc78

Sep 11, 2007 (4:25 am)

Replying to: captain2 (Sep 10, 2007 8:34 pm)
The Taurus is a FWD based car. As long as the front and rear wheels are spinning at the the same speed the rear wheels see no power. When the front wheels slip the computer will direct power to the rear wheels via a pump and clutch system. What I don't know is how much power the system is capable of directing to the rear. This is the same system Volvo uses with different computer controls for the FWD layout of the Taurus/500.

Messages Page 319 of 686

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement